Re: fstest failure due to filesystem size for 16k, 32k and 64k FSB

[Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>]

>> What should be the approach to solve this issue? 2 options that I had in my mind:
>>
>> 1. Similar to [2], we could add a small hack in mkfs xfs to ignore the log space
>> requirement while running fstests for these profiles.
>>
>> 2. Increase the size of filesystem under test to accommodate these profiles. It could
>> even be a conditional increase in filesystem size if the FSB > 16k to reduce the impact
>> on existing FS test time for 4k FSB.
>>
>> Let me know what would be the best way to move forward.
>>
>> Here are the results:
>>
>> Test environment:
>> kernel Release: 6.8.0-rc1
>> xfsprogs: 6.5.0
>> Architecture: aarch64
>> Page size: 64k
>>
>> Test matrix:
>>
>> | Test        | 32k rmapbt=0 | 32k rmapbt=1 | 64k rmapbt=0 | 64k rmapbt=1 |
>> | --------    | ---------    | ---------    | ---------    | ---------    |
>> | generic/042 |     fail     |     fail     |     fail     |     fail     |
>> | generic/081 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
>> | generic/108 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
>> | generic/455 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
>> | generic/457 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
>> | generic/482 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
>> | generic/704 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
>> | generic/730 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
>> | generic/731 |     fail     |     fail     |     pass     |     fail     |
>> | shared/298  |     pass     |     pass     |     pass     |     fail     |
> 
> I noticed test failures on these tests when running djwong-wtf:
> generic/042
> generic/081
> generic/108
> generic/219
> generic/305
> generic/326
> generic/562
> generic/704
> xfs/093
> xfs/113
> xfs/161
> xfs/262
> xfs/508
> xfs/604
> xfs/709
> 

Ok, there are some more tests that I didn't catch. I will check them out.

> Still sorting through all of them, but a large portion of them are the
> same failure to format due to minimum log size constraints.  I'd bump
> them up to ~500M (or whatever makes them work) since upstream doesn't
> really support small filesystems anymore.

Thanks for the reply. So we can have a small `if` conditional block for xfs
to have fs size = 500M in generic test cases.

We do this irrespective of filesystem blocksizes right? If we do that, then we can
remove the special conditional that allows tiny filesystems for fstests in mkfs
as well.

--
Pankaj